Disobedience in RCIA

[Dranu]

I’m in need of some advice. In my RCIA class they were talking about professing the faith by saying you believe all that the church believes and teaches. However, our lead instructor said its okay to believe what you want as long as the pope didn’t declare it infalliable. She claimed we can believe that women should be priests as long as we (if we were priests) don’t ordain them, and she made sevral other comments, including how she feels it was wrong for a bishop she knew to have been against taking Terri Schivo off life support.

Is she right? If she is this greatly confuses me in what to believe, because from what I know very few things are given ex-cathedra by the pope. I was in the mindset that the Church will never teach that women be ordained or some of the other things like never teaching to be able to be pro-abortion. I know the instructer is very liberal, but they seem well versed in the teachings and are a sister. Am I the one mistaken in thinking I need to hold all the teachings of the Church even if its not pronounced ex-cathedra? And if not what could I use to defend the position in the class? Thanks in advance.

 

[Sir_Knight]

The woman is wrong. Explain the following to her …

*If you want to call yourself Catholic, but you want to pick and choose for yourself which of the Church’s teachings to accept and which to reject, you give everyone else who calls themselves Catholic the right to do the same thing.

For example, you believe women should be priests…in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1577 states, “Only a baptized man validly receives ordination…For this reason the ordination of women is not possible!” You don’t believe that…well, that’s fine…[RIP] just tear that page out of your Catechism…you just made it a Catechism of your Catholic Church…not mine.

But remember, if you can throw doctrines out, so can everyone else who calls themselves Catholic. That gives Joe Parishioner over at St. Doubting Thomas Catholic Church the right to throw out the Church’s social justice teachings…he doesn’t feel like feeding the hungry, caring for the poor, and all that other “bleeding heart” stuff - Paragraphs 2401 -2463 [RIP]…he just made it a Catechism of his Catholic Church…not mine and not yours.

You believe contraception is okay? Paragraph 2370 says contraception is intrinsically evil! [RIP] Joe Parishioner doesn’t like what the Church teaches on the death penalty - Paragraphs 2266-2267[RIP]. You don’t like what it teaches on pages 55-60 [RIP]. He doesn’t like what it teaches on pages 128-140 [RIP]

Can you see what’s happening? I heard it said once that there is a shortage of vocations to the priesthood in the United States, but no shortage of vocations to the Papacy! If we don’t believe in all of it, if we each appoint ourselves Pope and throw out a doctrine here or a doctrine there, then our faith is no longer Catholic.*

by John Martignoni​

 

[Veritas41]

**890 **The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:
**891 **“The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.” This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.

As you can see from the above-quoted section from the Catechism, a teaching doesn’t have to be pronounced *ex cathedra *to be infallible and deserve the full assent of faith. Either your RCIA instructor is misinformed (not unusual even among those who are supposed to be teaching the Catholic faith) or she is deliberately narrowing the scope of infallible teaching to justify dissent from established teaching.

 

[Dranu]

Thanks for the responses so far, although I feel I know a good deal about the teachings of the Church I’m still lacking as to what is truely infalliable. If I can prove to her certain teachings are infalliable, I’m sure I could make a good point.

. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.” This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.

I think she would argue a bunch of things weren’t “for belief as being divinely revealed,” Is there a place I can check for infallibility? Or does this: “This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.” say that anything that the Church teaches is infalliable, like is the Catechism infalliable orr is the Church able to go back and teach something contrary to what is in it? I think even just with that last question being answered I might be able to defend the belief in obedience of action and mind to the Church.

 

[guanophore]

I’m in need of some advice. In my RCIA class they were talking about professing the faith by saying you believe all that the church believes and teaches. However, our lead instructor said its okay to believe what you want as long as the pope didn’t declare it infalliable. She claimed we can believe that women should be priests as long as we (if we were priests) don’t ordain them, and she made sevral other comments, including how she feels it was wrong for a bishop she knew to have been against taking Terri Schivo off life support.

This is an excellent question, and I commend you for asking it. It does not make sense to me why someone would want to become a member of a church where they did not agree/believe the teachings. On the other hand, there are many baptized Catholics that don’t believe what the Church teaches. You are right that the infallible statements are few. Most of the matters that people disagree with are matters of discipline, not doctrine or dogma. The rule of not ordaining women or married persons to the priesthood is an example of that.

Is she right? If she is this greatly confuses me in what to believe, because from what I know very few things are given ex-cathedra by the pope. I was in the mindset that the Church will never teach that women be ordained or some of the other things like never teaching to be able to be pro-abortion.

The teaching that abortion (killing) is wrong and will never be taught by the church is in a different category than rules of ordination and instruction. The church has recognized women as doctors (teachers) of the church, and that the New Testament recognizes women as deacons, though this is not the discipline of the church.

I know the instructer is very liberal, but they seem well versed in the teachings and are a sister. Am I the one mistaken in thinking I need to hold all the teachings of the Church even if its not pronounced ex-cathedra? And if not what could I use to defend the position in the class? Thanks in advance.

The teachings of the church have changed and evolved over time as truth is progressively revealed. What is essential to the catechumen is the belief that God has guaranteed His Spirit to the Magesterium (teachers) to guide them into all truth. Sometimes this takes a long time! When you enter into the church, you enter into communion with those who also seek God for the revelation of all truth. Personally, I was just puzzling this morning about why, when St. Paul recognized a woman as deacon in one of his epistles, women are not admitted to the diacanoate training program. However, this is not a teaching of the Church as a matter of faith and morals. It is in the category of discipline,a nd therefore, subject to review, and perhaps, change.

 

[Spirithound]

Most of the matters that people disagree with are matters of discipline, not doctrine or dogma. The rule of not ordaining women or married persons to the priesthood is an example of that.

The non-ordination of women is not a discipline. It is indeed dogma. Check out Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. Non-ordination of married men is a discipline, and can be changed at any time.

The church has recognized women as doctors (teachers) of the church, and that the New Testament recognizes women as deacons…

The title Doctor has nothing to do with the ministerial, sacramental priesthood. Phoebe the deaconness in the NT was comparable to today’s nuns, not the deacons of today. She did not receive ordination.

 

[Cranch]

…You are right that the infallible statements are few. Most of the matters that people disagree with are matters of discipline, not doctrine or dogma. The rule of not ordaining women or married persons to the priesthood is an example of that.

guanophore - The questions of ordaining women or married men are completely separate issues. Although no ordained priest can marry, there are men in the Church today who were married Anglican clergy before converting to Catholicism, and who have now been ordained as Catholic priests and remain married.

As to women priests, you are mistaken. Not all infallible teaching in the Church is declared ex cathedra. Infallibility also resides in the Church’s ordinary Magisterium, which infallibly teaches that women cannot become priests.

Here are the pertinent paragraphs from Pope John Paul II’s 1994* Ordinatio Sacerdotalis*:

Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.

              Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that **this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.**

The infallibility of this teaching was confirmed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in its Responsum Ad Dubium on October 28, 1995, when they responded to a Bishop’s inquiry about *Ordinatio Sacerdotalis *with the following:

This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25. 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.

For an interesting discussion of the difference between infallibility of the ordinary Magisterium and papal infallibility and how it relates to *Ordinatio Sacerdotalis *:
http://www.st-joseph-foundation.org/newsletter/lead.php?document=2006/24-2

 

[El_camino]

I’m in need of some advice. In my RCIA class they were talking about professing the faith by saying you believe all that the church believes and teaches. However, our lead instructor said its okay to believe what you want as long as the pope didn’t declare it infalliable. She claimed we can believe that women should be priests as long as we (if we were priests) don’t ordain them, and she made sevral other comments, including how she feels it was wrong for a bishop she knew to have been against taking Terri Schivo off life support.

Is she right? If she is this greatly confuses me in what to believe, because from what I know very few things are given ex-cathedra by the pope. I was in the mindset that the Church will never teach that women be ordained or some of the other things like never teaching to be able to be pro-abortion. I know the instructer is very liberal, but they seem well versed in the teachings and are a sister. Am I the one mistaken in thinking I need to hold all the teachings of the Church even if its not pronounced ex-cathedra? And if not what could I use to defend the position in the class? Thanks in advance.

She is wrong and you are right. Just because something has not been declared infallible we cannot simply believe what we want. The Church asks for obedience always, as you mention. Regarding the Shiavo case, she is wrong in opposing life as she does… My take is that you should talk to the priest in your parish about this lady. A person like that should not be an RCIA leader as she brings confusion to the new converts.

Blessings,

E.C.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Danu

First I would advise do not sweat this issue. Second look at the Nicene Creed, it is a summary statement, do you believe what is in the Creed? If you answer yes you are good to go. In regard to the specifics of your case I would strongly advise you let it go. Concerning the other issues on this thread they are dangerous particularly for a young person in RCIA. Frankly, left unreviewed may be the best option. Have a great Easter!

 

[jack_hawkins]

Regarding the Shiavo case, she is wrong in opposing life as she does…

I find very often lay people misinterpret the actions of people in coma and PVS. They claim genuine signs of higher function when in fact there are only reflex actions. I can’t see why people equate being “pro-life” to keeping people going as long as possible regardless of the situation - esp if we have the hope of eternal glory. Otherwise why turn off ventilators at all, even in cases of brain stem death?
PS was Terry Schiavo even **on **“life support” - wasn’t she in a persistent vegetative state?

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I’m in need of some advice. In my RCIA class they were talking about professing the faith by saying you believe all that the church believes and teaches. However, our lead instructor said its okay to believe what you want as long as the pope didn’t declare it infalliable. She claimed we can believe that women should be priests as long as we (if we were priests) don’t ordain them, and she made sevral other comments, including how she feels it was wrong for a bishop she knew to have been against taking Terri Schivo off life support.

Is she right? If she is this greatly confuses me in what to believe, because from what I know very few things are given ex-cathedra by the pope. I was in the mindset that the Church will never teach that women be ordained or some of the other things like never teaching to be able to be pro-abortion. I know the instructer is very liberal, but they seem well versed in the teachings and are a sister. Am I the one mistaken in thinking I need to hold all the teachings of the Church even if its not pronounced ex-cathedra? And if not what could I use to defend the position in the class? Thanks in advance.

The way I teach this is as follows.

The Doctrinal and Moral teachings of the Church develop but do not change. We come to a better or greater understanding without effecting anything we understood before. We must accept the Doctrinal and Moral teachings of the Church, we will sometimes have doubts ans sometimes not fully understand but cannot reject . For instance women cannot receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders. The Church does not say that they should not be Ordained , it says that they cannot be Ordained, it’s not possible.

Discipline, the laws of the Church are made to reflect what we believe but can and do change. For instance Fish on Fridays. If the Church were to return to the Discipline of Fish on Fridays. You could disagree. However you would still be obligated to obey the law of Fish on Fridays. Breaking the law would be a sinful action.

 

[sruyle]

Let the Parish Priest & the Bishops Office know. We don’t need RCIA instructors confusing the elect.

 

[guanophore]

The non-ordination of women is not a discipline. It is indeed dogma. Check out Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. Non-ordination of married men is a discipline, and can be changed at any time.

Thank you, I sit corrected on that point.
Spirithound;1949406:

The title Doctor has nothing to do with the ministerial, sacramental priesthood. Phoebe the deaconness in the NT was comparable to today’s nuns, not the deacons of today. She did not receive ordination.

I understand that, but it does mean that the persons teaching are sound for training in faith and morals. How do you KNOW Pheobe was not ordained? There is no explanation given of how she became a deaconess. Prior to that time, all the deacons were ordained. Paul wrote often of “women” and “virgins” and “widows” living the consecrated life. Why did he choose a different term here? And all that aside, why would a woman not be acceptable as a deacon? Perhaps that is too far off topic for this thread…

 

[guanophore]

Thanks for this info. I must admit I do not understand this rule, but it is good to have it clarified.

guanophore - The questions of ordaining women or married men are completely separate issues. Although no ordained priest can marry, there are men in the Church today who were married Anglican clergy before converting to Catholicism, and who have now been ordained as Catholic priests and remain married.

As to women priests, you are mistaken. Not all infallible teaching in the Church is declared ex cathedra. Infallibility also resides in the Church’s ordinary Magisterium, which infallibly teaches that women cannot become priests.

Here are the pertinent paragraphs from Pope John Paul II’s 1994* Ordinatio Sacerdotalis*:

The infallibility of this teaching was confirmed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in its Responsum Ad Dubium on October 28, 1995, when they responded to a Bishop’s inquiry about *Ordinatio Sacerdotalis *with the following:

For an interesting discussion of the difference between infallibility of the ordinary Magisterium and papal infallibility and how it relates to *Ordinatio Sacerdotalis *:
http://www.st-joseph-foundation.org/newsletter/lead.php?document=2006/24-2

 

[Dirk_Skene]

Dranu, the RCIA instructor needs to be replaced and I apologize to no one for saying that. It sounds like you did not get caught up in her nonsense though. Good for you.

 

[guanophore]

I find very often lay people misinterpret the actions of people in coma and PVS. They claim genuine signs of higher function when in fact there are only reflex actions. I can’t see why people equate being “pro-life” to keeping people going as long as possible regardless of the situation - esp if we have the hope of eternal glory. Otherwise why turn off ventilators at all, even in cases of brain stem death?
PS was Terry Schiavo even **on **“life support” - wasn’t she in a persistent vegetative state?

I think you are right about this misunderstandiing, however, I don’t think that is the problem. the problem is that people who have been in that “vegetative state” have woken up! Since we never know what may happen, we need to preserve the possibility of life. They took her off life support, and she went on living! It is wrong to withhold food and drink from a person, especially because you want them out of your life so you can marry someone else.

 

[Verita]

I understand that, but it does mean that the persons teaching are sound for training in faith and morals. How do you KNOW Pheobe was not ordained? There is no explanation given of how she became a deaconess. Prior to that time, all the deacons were ordained. Paul wrote often of “women” and “virgins” and “widows” living the consecrated life. Why did he choose a different term here? And all that aside, why would a woman not be acceptable as a deacon? Perhaps that is too far off topic for this thread…

Actually, ordination has nothing to do with making a person’s teaching “sound for training in faith and morals”. Deacons, Priests, Bishops and even Popes can all give incorrect teachings and too frequently do. Infallibility is a separate gift from God and is reserved for special people and special circumstances.

Also, ordination isn’t something that we make happen. I’m sure you realize that even if a valid Bishop were to go through the motions of ordaining a woman as Priest, she wouldn’t actually be ordained. Ordination is something that God does. Therefore, there never was a woman who was ordained, no matter what they called themselves. This is God’s will.

 

[homewardbound]

If she continues to be this way, I would leave. Thats what I had to do last fall.(Then again as it is getting pretty close to Confirmation, if you are going to be confirmed, waiting it out might be good too) afterwards I’d definitely go to a priest about this. Too many RCIA instructers are spreading this kind of garbage. I don’t think anyone should just “tolerate it” and keep allowing new converts to be fed such stupidity. No one in my RCIA class said anything about the stuff the teacher taught us, they think its all great! Mainly cause they don’t know what the Church teachings really are yet.

Allowing teachers like these to continue will only hurt the Church.

 

[guanophore]

I understand that, but it does mean that the persons teaching are sound for training in faith and morals. How do you KNOW Pheobe was not ordained? There is no explanation given of how she became a deaconess. Prior to that time, all the deacons were ordained. Paul wrote often of “women” and “virgins” and “widows” living the consecrated life. Why did he choose a different term here? And all that aside, why would a woman not be acceptable as a deacon? Perhaps that is too far off topic for this thread…

[Actually, ordination has nothing to do with making a person’s teaching “sound for training in faith and morals”. Deacons, Priests, Bishops and even Popes can all give incorrect teachings and too frequently do. Infallibility is a separate gift from God and is reserved for special people and special circumstances.

On the contrary, I think it does. I think that is why an ordained person is supposed to give the homily at Mass. I think the official task of instruction of the faithful is entrusted in a special way to the ordained persons. I agree with you that some do a poor job of manifesting the gift. I recently heard a spot on this in CA radio where someone called in that the priest was allowing the sister in charge of religious ed for the parish to do the homily. Apparently this is a liturgical abuse. Even a woman who is more learned and better at teaching may not do so at that time and place of the Mass.

Also, ordination isn’t something that we make happen. I’m sure you realize that even if a valid Bishop were to go through the motions of ordaining a woman as Priest, she wouldn’t actually be ordained. Ordination is something that God does. Therefore, there never was a woman who was ordained, no matter what they called themselves. This is God’s will.

I read on the internet where this actually happened. I think ordination is just like any of the other sacraments, and that it is participative. It will not happen without our participation, so I am not sure how you mean that we don’t make it happen. I understand that it is instituted by Christ, and that the sacrament is accomplished by the work of the Holy Spirit. So I guess what you are saying is that the bishop went through the motions of ordaining these women, but the HS did not do His part, because it was against His will, so they are not really priests.

womensordination.org/
[/quote]

 

[Lillith]

hello Dranu…

I’ll admit that I did not have a perfect belief when I came into the Church at sixteen…but I always looked at it as this…it wasn’t disobedience as much as it was ignorance…so I was brought in incomplete but obedient, and I think that is O.K. “I don’t understand” is great…“I don’t believe” is unacceptable.

As far as your R.C.I.A. instructor…she will be beating her head into a rock for the rest of her life unless she finishes her own R.C.I.A. process…